And those costs don't go away. It doesn't matter what the cost breakdown is, the fact is you still have to either eat into the profit margin for fancy electronics on a cereal box, or you have to increase prices. I don't think the market would bear the increased costs (people would just buy the non-ePaper boxes), so your only remaining option is to eat into the profit margin.
funny that american football is called that, the ball rarely makes contact with the foot.
Funny that Billiards is called that, when the game rarely involves the paying of bills. Funny that Rugby is called that, when the game rarely involves a rug. Funny that Golf is called that, when the game rarely involves German cars. Funny that Hockey is called that, when there is little hocking.
The cost of the food, as you point out, is only a small portion of the true cost of a product.
You have to account for that "everything else" BEFORE you can think about the extra cost of the digital display. Just because you have put ePaper on a cereal box doesn't mean you don't have to market it or ship it. The cost of that display is above and beyond everything else, and must directly eat in to the profit margin.
So let me get this straight. An anonymous blogger claiming to be this Chappaz character (Do we have actual proof he is who he claims he is?) who claims to have formerly worked for Yahoo Europe is claiming that he has an anonymous source that claims that Google will purchase Opera?
I'm sorry, the veracity of this string of claims is just dripping all over me. Pardom me while I go invest my life savings in Opera stock.
What you describe can already be done, probably cheaper, with said existing technologies. I seem to recall somebody mentioning an entire ultracheap game device using those static LCDs that cost something on the order of 25 cents to make. The entire point of ePaper is that you can change the image. If you're going to burn single static images into the thing, it defeats the entire purpose of ePaper.
Why don't people do this already, then? Because the concept of the article is bullshit. A box of Cheerios costs less than $4. There isn't room in the profit margin for electronic displays of any kind.
So only the display part is flexible, but there is a seperate PCB for circuitry? What connects the PCB to the display then, if not wires?
$10 is hideously expensive compared to the cost of the product you're bundling this display with (A cereal box). Pretend that storage space is linear, and we need to get that cost down to 10 cents. That is 1/100th of the cost, and by our fake linear approximation, and that is about 10KB of storage space. Assuming one bit per pixel and no compression (Too expensive to decode), that is about one single 320x256 black and white image. If we set a limit of 50 cents for all components, the ePaper is 30 cents (according to the article), the storage is 10 cents, that leaves 10 cents for components to get the data from the memory to the display. This isn't sounding practical.
Keep in mind that ANY such display is eating in to the profit margine of the product, since it adds no value to the product in most cases. In this case, we're talking about a box of cereal.
A box of cheerios goes for $3.85, according to a random online grocer. I have no idea what the profit margin is like on Cheerios, but I highly doubt there is room for a few dollars worth of components, let alone even 50 cents worth of components.
It isn't an incentive, think of it more like having to pay for lawsuits.
Limit the rule to jury-decided suits, then. The court has no more incentives since it doesn't control anything. These digital piracy cases are SUPPOSED to be settled by jury, after all, when they aren't settled via extortion.
While I recall a recent article detailing the etching of a functional Z80 onto glass, I question the ability to integrate large amounts of storage (comparatively) onto a flexible substrate. Is that really practical for a cereal box? The profit margins involved there can tolerate devices that cost pennies, not dollars.
They've been talking about ePaper like this for years, along with a ton of other technologies. ePaper doesn't seem to be any closer to their claims now than it was years ago.
OLED too. Considering they keep showing off larger and larger displays, and the stuff is supposed to be dirt cheap to manufacture, I sure haven't seen any OLED displays bigger than a few inches across. If they are truely as cheap as they claim they are, lifespan isn't an issue as you could buy frequent replacements. Make a 17" OLED display with a modular capability to easily swap out the display itself. If it only cost $50 for the display itself, replacing it a few times during the lifetime of the product could still be cheaper than existing technology.
So if somebody steals a $10 CD, they should go to jail where society has to pay thousands to support them?
I'm sorry, I don't think society should be expected to pay thousands of dollars for a $10 CD that they could care less about. Jailing digital pirates amounts to shifting the burden from the theif to society. Such crimes need to be handled with fines and penalties, not jailtime. On top of that, any penalties collected from thiefs should first go to cover the costs of the legal system, including all involved (Judges, jurors, bailiffs, assistants, power, heating, etc).
Notice I'm not making a statement on if Kazaa and digital piracy is right or wrong. I just think that jail time is an unfair burden on the rest of us (since we have to pay for it), and that compensation should first go to the system that is persecuting. It isn't free to run a legal system, you know.
Huh? ATi giving fierce competition? Obviously you haven't been following their tentative first steps into the chipset market. To date, their chipsets have more or less been failures. nVidia is totally dominating the AMD chipset marketplace, and is making excellent inroads in the Intel chipset marketplace.
You did realize that I'm talking about motherboard chipsets, right? Because the article is about nVidia purchasing a chipset manufacturer. So surely you RTFAd.
As an interesting comment, ATI's southbridge for their CrossFire chipset was so horrible that most motherboard manufacturers were using ULi southbridges on CrossFire motherboards (Meaning an ATI northbridge and a ULi southbridge).
It is not in the best interests of the US government to allow a monopoly to be created, regardless of if it is an american company. ATI doesn't really have much to do with the chipset market either, their first few chipsets have been disasters. Monopoly leads to lack of competition, which leads to inflated pricing on sub-standard components.
Intel is also a US company, if I'm not mistaken, though I'll admit that Via is not.
If the pictures they took are any indication, the product is total crap. I'm not trolling here, look at the images yourself and you'll come to the same conclusion.
Products like these are just stupid. You're capturing the digital output with a CAMERA for crying out loud! A camera!
How long before governments look to stop nVidia from buying out the entire chipset market? They're starting to verge on monopoly here. Just when another chipset maker starts to get established, they buy them up.
Personally I think the concept of ratios is stupid. It is contrary to the entire POINT of BitTorrent. I try to keep my client set to seed double the amount I download. But constantly having to register temporary accounts on private sites is very annoying, and private trackers with ratios are so annoying I avoid them entirely. I just want to click a link on a website and download a file, not fill out a million forms and content with buggy complicated web interfaces.
They're selling on eBay for $40 or $50 USD. And the one I saw the other day for $40 came with six games.
The market is obviously already collapsed. Nobody wants the things, and they're selling on the cheap on eBay. I doubt many people will buy the console for so high above their market value.
So while North American and European buyers are desperate for more consoles, they are sitting on store shelves in Japan. Yeah, this whole worldwide launch thing was a GREAT idea.
1) Transparent cacheing via Squid 2) Packet shaping to throttle or block certain protocols (Kill off P2P from your corporate network, for example) 3) Offsite proxying to compress text (HTML, JS, CSS, etc) to save bandwidth. Also might want to think about recompressing JPEG/GIF/etc offsite to save bandwidth at the sacrifice of quality 4) REQUIRE FLASHBLOCK ON ALL COMPUTERS. Seriously, the good thing about FlashBlock is that it doesn't prevent flash, only that flash will only load if you click on them. The benefit of this is that all the flash advertisements don't load, saving a LOT of bandwidth. 5) Look into Google Web Accelerator, or something similar. It will save a lot more bandwidth than just a web cache, and as I understand it, it also takes care of number 3 above by compressinve and DIFFing files for you before transfering them to you. 6) Find a cheaper connection. Seriously, there has got to be something better out there. Get some satellite internet out there for web traffic, since the 500ms latency doesn't matter for the web.
So then you are saying that if people can get their news free on the internet from one source independantly of another source, people won't go to the non-free source?
Well, yes, why would we expect any differently? Here's the thing; it IS possible to make money on the internet. Banner advertising such as Google AdSense makes site owners a lot of money these days, as long as people can make money by putting stuff on websites they can continue to offer it for "free".
So yes, as far as the success of things like Google AdSense is concerned, online content CAN remain free. A good example is Digg. They're making all their money off a SINGLE GOOGLE AD, and now they've got millions in venture capital to grow much faster. Or look at sites like Anandtech that produce a LOT of money managing their own ads, and still produce an enormous amount of original content (More than computer magazines, but they're free).
Obviously you missed the part about "The Canadian government". There isn't really any situation where "evasive high speed" would ever be needed.
I mean, if there were a natural disaster in Montreal, the only roads that could support high speeds (the highways) would be gridlocked traffic much like they are every day during rushhour.
CAD was in development for quite a while before Tim published the first comic online. Plenty of time to become more aware of the scene he was entering.
I can see how you wouldn't have heard it before. I've read it online in a few articles/interviews, and heard him say it when he came to Montreal.
IIRC, CAD was in development for quite some time before the first comic was ever written. Tim did a whole bunch of work (which he didn't publish) before he did the first comic.
Once he got further into it, I'd imagine it was kind of hard to avoid Penny-Arcade.
I mean, they are both videogame comics, there are bound to be SOME similarities. I mean, when I was watching through Babylon 5 again a few months back, I read the entry on The Lurker's Guide to each episode. An ongoing theme was people claiming JMS was giving homages to various other works. JMS became quite annoyed by these constant claims, and continuously said that no, he wasn't referencing Lord of the Rings or whatever else, it was just a coincidence. He actually wrote some jokes about that into later episodes.
Slashdot Mirror
And those costs don't go away. It doesn't matter what the cost breakdown is, the fact is you still have to either eat into the profit margin for fancy electronics on a cereal box, or you have to increase prices. I don't think the market would bear the increased costs (people would just buy the non-ePaper boxes), so your only remaining option is to eat into the profit margin.
funny that american football is called that, the ball rarely makes contact with the foot.
Funny that Billiards is called that, when the game rarely involves the paying of bills.
Funny that Rugby is called that, when the game rarely involves a rug.
Funny that Golf is called that, when the game rarely involves German cars.
Funny that Hockey is called that, when there is little hocking.
You get my point, I trust?
The cost of the food, as you point out, is only a small portion of the true cost of a product.
You have to account for that "everything else" BEFORE you can think about the extra cost of the digital display. Just because you have put ePaper on a cereal box doesn't mean you don't have to market it or ship it. The cost of that display is above and beyond everything else, and must directly eat in to the profit margin.
So let me get this straight. An anonymous blogger claiming to be this Chappaz character (Do we have actual proof he is who he claims he is?) who claims to have formerly worked for Yahoo Europe is claiming that he has an anonymous source that claims that Google will purchase Opera?
I'm sorry, the veracity of this string of claims is just dripping all over me. Pardom me while I go invest my life savings in Opera stock.
What you describe can already be done, probably cheaper, with said existing technologies. I seem to recall somebody mentioning an entire ultracheap game device using those static LCDs that cost something on the order of 25 cents to make. The entire point of ePaper is that you can change the image. If you're going to burn single static images into the thing, it defeats the entire purpose of ePaper.
Why don't people do this already, then? Because the concept of the article is bullshit. A box of Cheerios costs less than $4. There isn't room in the profit margin for electronic displays of any kind.
So only the display part is flexible, but there is a seperate PCB for circuitry? What connects the PCB to the display then, if not wires?
$10 is hideously expensive compared to the cost of the product you're bundling this display with (A cereal box). Pretend that storage space is linear, and we need to get that cost down to 10 cents. That is 1/100th of the cost, and by our fake linear approximation, and that is about 10KB of storage space. Assuming one bit per pixel and no compression (Too expensive to decode), that is about one single 320x256 black and white image. If we set a limit of 50 cents for all components, the ePaper is 30 cents (according to the article), the storage is 10 cents, that leaves 10 cents for components to get the data from the memory to the display. This isn't sounding practical.
Keep in mind that ANY such display is eating in to the profit margine of the product, since it adds no value to the product in most cases. In this case, we're talking about a box of cereal.
A box of cheerios goes for $3.85, according to a random online grocer. I have no idea what the profit margin is like on Cheerios, but I highly doubt there is room for a few dollars worth of components, let alone even 50 cents worth of components.
It isn't an incentive, think of it more like having to pay for lawsuits.
Limit the rule to jury-decided suits, then. The court has no more incentives since it doesn't control anything. These digital piracy cases are SUPPOSED to be settled by jury, after all, when they aren't settled via extortion.
While I recall a recent article detailing the etching of a functional Z80 onto glass, I question the ability to integrate large amounts of storage (comparatively) onto a flexible substrate. Is that really practical for a cereal box? The profit margins involved there can tolerate devices that cost pennies, not dollars.
They've been talking about ePaper like this for years, along with a ton of other technologies. ePaper doesn't seem to be any closer to their claims now than it was years ago.
OLED too. Considering they keep showing off larger and larger displays, and the stuff is supposed to be dirt cheap to manufacture, I sure haven't seen any OLED displays bigger than a few inches across. If they are truely as cheap as they claim they are, lifespan isn't an issue as you could buy frequent replacements. Make a 17" OLED display with a modular capability to easily swap out the display itself. If it only cost $50 for the display itself, replacing it a few times during the lifetime of the product could still be cheaper than existing technology.
There still has to be a digital input to the ePaper. Like an LCD, it will always be possible to hack it to display something else.
So if somebody steals a $10 CD, they should go to jail where society has to pay thousands to support them?
I'm sorry, I don't think society should be expected to pay thousands of dollars for a $10 CD that they could care less about. Jailing digital pirates amounts to shifting the burden from the theif to society. Such crimes need to be handled with fines and penalties, not jailtime. On top of that, any penalties collected from thiefs should first go to cover the costs of the legal system, including all involved (Judges, jurors, bailiffs, assistants, power, heating, etc).
Notice I'm not making a statement on if Kazaa and digital piracy is right or wrong. I just think that jail time is an unfair burden on the rest of us (since we have to pay for it), and that compensation should first go to the system that is persecuting. It isn't free to run a legal system, you know.
Huh? ATi giving fierce competition? Obviously you haven't been following their tentative first steps into the chipset market. To date, their chipsets have more or less been failures. nVidia is totally dominating the AMD chipset marketplace, and is making excellent inroads in the Intel chipset marketplace.
You did realize that I'm talking about motherboard chipsets, right? Because the article is about nVidia purchasing a chipset manufacturer. So surely you RTFAd.
As an interesting comment, ATI's southbridge for their CrossFire chipset was so horrible that most motherboard manufacturers were using ULi southbridges on CrossFire motherboards (Meaning an ATI northbridge and a ULi southbridge).
It is not in the best interests of the US government to allow a monopoly to be created, regardless of if it is an american company. ATI doesn't really have much to do with the chipset market either, their first few chipsets have been disasters. Monopoly leads to lack of competition, which leads to inflated pricing on sub-standard components.
Intel is also a US company, if I'm not mistaken, though I'll admit that Via is not.
If the pictures they took are any indication, the product is total crap. I'm not trolling here, look at the images yourself and you'll come to the same conclusion.
Products like these are just stupid. You're capturing the digital output with a CAMERA for crying out loud! A camera!
How long before governments look to stop nVidia from buying out the entire chipset market? They're starting to verge on monopoly here. Just when another chipset maker starts to get established, they buy them up.
Personally I think the concept of ratios is stupid. It is contrary to the entire POINT of BitTorrent. I try to keep my client set to seed double the amount I download. But constantly having to register temporary accounts on private sites is very annoying, and private trackers with ratios are so annoying I avoid them entirely. I just want to click a link on a website and download a file, not fill out a million forms and content with buggy complicated web interfaces.
They're selling on eBay for $40 or $50 USD. And the one I saw the other day for $40 came with six games.
The market is obviously already collapsed. Nobody wants the things, and they're selling on the cheap on eBay. I doubt many people will buy the console for so high above their market value.
So while North American and European buyers are desperate for more consoles, they are sitting on store shelves in Japan. Yeah, this whole worldwide launch thing was a GREAT idea.
1) Transparent cacheing via Squid
2) Packet shaping to throttle or block certain protocols (Kill off P2P from your corporate network, for example)
3) Offsite proxying to compress text (HTML, JS, CSS, etc) to save bandwidth. Also might want to think about recompressing JPEG/GIF/etc offsite to save bandwidth at the sacrifice of quality
4) REQUIRE FLASHBLOCK ON ALL COMPUTERS. Seriously, the good thing about FlashBlock is that it doesn't prevent flash, only that flash will only load if you click on them. The benefit of this is that all the flash advertisements don't load, saving a LOT of bandwidth.
5) Look into Google Web Accelerator, or something similar. It will save a lot more bandwidth than just a web cache, and as I understand it, it also takes care of number 3 above by compressinve and DIFFing files for you before transfering them to you.
6) Find a cheaper connection. Seriously, there has got to be something better out there. Get some satellite internet out there for web traffic, since the 500ms latency doesn't matter for the web.
So then you are saying that if people can get their news free on the internet from one source independantly of another source, people won't go to the non-free source?
Well, yes, why would we expect any differently? Here's the thing; it IS possible to make money on the internet. Banner advertising such as Google AdSense makes site owners a lot of money these days, as long as people can make money by putting stuff on websites they can continue to offer it for "free".
So yes, as far as the success of things like Google AdSense is concerned, online content CAN remain free. A good example is Digg. They're making all their money off a SINGLE GOOGLE AD, and now they've got millions in venture capital to grow much faster. Or look at sites like Anandtech that produce a LOT of money managing their own ads, and still produce an enormous amount of original content (More than computer magazines, but they're free).
Obviously you missed the part about "The Canadian government". There isn't really any situation where "evasive high speed" would ever be needed.
I mean, if there were a natural disaster in Montreal, the only roads that could support high speeds (the highways) would be gridlocked traffic much like they are every day during rushhour.
Wups, you're right.
I looked it up, though, JMS's response:
"As for Walter...he made the decision to play Bester with a deformed or useless hand, which he's compensating for as a teep."
So the decision was not made in the script, but after.
CAD was in development for quite a while before Tim published the first comic online. Plenty of time to become more aware of the scene he was entering.
I can see how you wouldn't have heard it before. I've read it online in a few articles/interviews, and heard him say it when he came to Montreal.
IIRC, CAD was in development for quite some time before the first comic was ever written. Tim did a whole bunch of work (which he didn't publish) before he did the first comic.
Once he got further into it, I'd imagine it was kind of hard to avoid Penny-Arcade.
I mean, they are both videogame comics, there are bound to be SOME similarities. I mean, when I was watching through Babylon 5 again a few months back, I read the entry on The Lurker's Guide to each episode. An ongoing theme was people claiming JMS was giving homages to various other works. JMS became quite annoyed by these constant claims, and continuously said that no, he wasn't referencing Lord of the Rings or whatever else, it was just a coincidence. He actually wrote some jokes about that into later episodes.
You don't need to reboot a *nix box for a kernel upgrade? News to me.